The trial court must evaluate evidence when considering a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and can implead additional accused if warranted, regardless of the petitioner's status.

ORDER :

Challenging the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate–I, Ponneri in Crl.M.P.No.1889 of 2024 in C.C.No.39 of 2023, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :

(i) The petitioner, who is claiming to be the Hereditary Trustee of the Temple – Arulmigu Kaalatheeswarar Swami Thirukoil at Sayanavaram Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District, had filed a petition dated 21.11.2017 before the Inspector General of Registration (IGR), Chennai, complaining of fraudulent registration of Temple lands by one Thiru.S.R.Subramaniyam [elder brother of the petitioner's father] who has executed a registered lease deed to an extent of 18.71 acres of the said temple lands vide document No.6748/2013 dated 20.05.2013 at Ponneri Sub- Registrar Office, for a period of 10 years in favour of his grandson R.Sivaramakrishnan, for an annual rent of Rs.2,000/- and lease amount of Rs.10,000/- in his self proclaimed capacity as Hereditary Trustee of the Temple. Based on the complaint, the Inspector General of Tamil Nadu, conducted a thorough enquiry and directions were given to the Sub-Registrar, Ponneri, to file an FIR against the persons concerned, who are involved in the fraudulent registration of the temple lands. Thus, the Sub-Registrar, Ponneri filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police, E-1 Ponneri Police Station, against the executants of the fraudulent document and a case in Crime No.488 of 2018 was registered on 19.10.2018 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC read with Sections 82(a) and 82(d) of Registration Act, 1908.

(ii) In the mean while, the petitioner gave a complaint dated 23.11.2017 to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Government of Tamil Nadu (HR & CE). The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE, Tiruvallur, after thorough enquiry passed an order on 05.04.2018 directing the Ponneri HR&CE Circle Inspector to take possession of the temple lands from the private party and make arrangements for Open Lease Auction of Temple lands and also directed to cancel the sale deed executed by private persons.

(iii) As the orders of the authorities concerned were not acted upon, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4515 of 2019 and this Court vide order dated 28.09.2020 allowed the petition and directed the authority concerned to cancel the lease deed vide document No.6748/2013 dated 20.05.2013, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Ponneri, registered by 6^th respondent therein in favour of 7^th respondent therein as void ab initio and also directed the Inspector of Police, Ponneri to conclude the investigation in Crime No.488 of 2018 and submit a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and also passed various directions to the authority concerned. Failing to comply with the directions of this Court dated 20.05.2013 in W.P.No.4515 of 2019, the petitioner has filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.1690 of 2021. After initiating contempt proceedings, the first respondent herein filed a final report/charge sheet against A1 and A2 before the Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Tiruvallur and the cognizance of the final report was taken on file in C.C.No.66 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC r/w Sections 82 (a) and 82(d) of Registration Act, 1908 and the petitioner was listed as P.W.2 in the final report. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Ponneri and re-numbered as C.C.No.39 of 2023.

(iv) While that being so, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2634 of 2023 under Section 302 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to allow him to prosecute the case in C.C.No.39 of 2023 in person. The Court below vide order dated 10.01.2024 allowed the petition and only permitted the petitioner to assist the prosecution. Challenging the same, the petitioner